Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[sheeplesnshills]

NANOthermite is not at all the same thing as regular old-fashioned thermite. The particles of aluminium,iron exide and a variety of other possible additives are milled down to nano proportions. Very hi-tech stuff let me tell you. The mere presence of such large quantities of these micro-particles is enough to confirm the inside job all on their own.

No it wouldn't because no milled particles were found. Try milling a sphere, not easy and its not a good shape for surface area versus mass. In fact its the last shape you would choose.

So in nanothermite the surface area is vastly increased making the reaction work vastly more quickly than in in it's old-fashioned namesake. Forget the slow-burning.

The energy would be the same and since no one has every shown that it can cut through anything and there was no evidence that it did cut through anything..........

I think aound 35% of the core columns were completely melted up to around the 88th floor in a fast sequence from bottom to top allowing the molten steel to drop down through the holes of where the column underneath had been all the way down into the basement. Maybe thousands of tons of liquid steel ended up bubbling down there

.

And no such ingot of iron was found. In any case why melt the columns? as the fire showed, heating them up a bit was quite enough to cause them to fail.

The building has been shown to move slightly about 8 seconds before general collapse which would fit nicely. I like to think of it as the building 'settling' on it's new reduced core.(But still well within the tolerance of redundency which had a factor of safety of three-to-one)

yes reduced by impact and fire (over 10 floors of fire in the case of WTC1)
no nanny themite required (or is it sooper nanny thats was used?)

 

[beachnut]

Even if the dust only contained 0.5% iron micro-spheres it would still be far too much for an innocent explanation Beachnut. When I look at the dust in this newly-released video I sometimes think that I would love to see a strong magnet being dragged through it on video. I'd say it would be a very furry magnet in no time. lol

http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#p/u/7/ZduP7HTM3cg

You posted a video proving no thermite. Good job.

Sorry, you are wrong again. You have no idea what you are talking about. Bill, they made up thermite out of the blue. One day Jones said thermite did it and idiots believe him.

Wow, they found iron? Wow, WOW!!!

Iron is the most common element in the earth as a whole, and the fourth most common in the Earth's crust. It is produced as a result of stellar fusion in high-mass stars, and it is the heaviest stable element produced by stellar fusion because the fusion of iron is the last nuclear fusion reaction that is exothermic. Iron is the most widely used metal, and iron compounds, which include ferrous and ferric compounds, have several uses as well.

Before you spew nonsense about thermite try to learn why I can find the iron spheres right in my yard, and I have no thermite here. You like lies and delusions and you don't care by persistently spewing nonsense to mislead other people. Just keep on telling lies, it is what you do best.

Show me the photos of real nano-thermite. Kind of funny you can't figure out 911 given the answers and 8 years. Why do you fall for all the nut case ideas. It would be odd if iron was not found. You have to be trying to be wrong, to be at 100 percent wrong on 911 issues.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Which properties? The fact that it is in the WTC dust there and there is only one reason for it to be there - to melt steel. The iron spheres that were found by the USGS and the RJ Lee Group are consistent with spheres created by nano-thermite as can be seen in these photos:

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img204/3239/redgraychipswithspheres.jpg[/qimg]

There is no other known explanation for the iron spheres that make up nearly 6% of the WTC dust. The RJ Lee Group states that they were created during the event.

Even Truthers, like C7, can't tell the difference between rust (iron oxide) & nano-thermite.

C7, you're wrong on so many counts that it's funny how you assume that natural occuring rust is proof of nano-thermite. You, like many Truthers, forget that the steel in the WTCs' were subjected to salt from the ocean. Salt is a known enemy to unprotected steel, of course you wouldn't know this because you lack the intelligence to research the properties of rust or the locations of steel buildings adjacent to the ocean.

Given that rust (iron oxide) is an ingredient into making thermite with aluminum particules. Rust, alone, isn't explosive nor is it prone to ignition.

So you're just babbling about nothing because you know nothing.

BTW: Truthers who think they "solved" the issue of nano-thermite being used are wrong. It took 8 months to clear the 16 acre site of debris. With the firefighters dousing the flames in the debris with water from the Hudson River & the time it took to clear the debris away, there would be rust (iron oxide) found on the steel & in the dust. Truthers disreguard the fact that even in 8 months time, rust (iron oxide) can be formed. But they handwave it like it was nothing.

 

[grandmastershek]

Correction noted - thank you.

Although thermate is the only known explanation for liquefied Sample 1 from WTC 7, the dogs did not detect the sulfur that caused this melting.

Maybe because it was only 2 samples amongst thousands (millions?) of tons of steel and those samples were from WTC 7 where no one would be looking for survivors? Not to mention the temps found in those samples reached nowhere near any form of thermite. Also kind of cute how you have just leapfrogged back to thermate. Reminds me of the god of the gaps arguments.

Only known explanation? Do you have any research to back that up other than the non peer review of the twoof?

 

[Sabretooth]

Circular reasoning of Chris7.

Chris: Thermite caused WTC7 to fall down!
Sane Person: No, just fires.
Chris: But witness says explosion!
Sane Person: Thermite doesn’t explode.
Chris: Then it was Nanothermite!
Sane Person: There were no explosions.
Chris: because it was thermite!

 

[GlennB]

Circular reasoning of Chris7.

Chris: Thermite caused WTC7 to fall down!
Sane Person: No, just fires.
Chris: But witness says explosion!
Sane Person: Thermite doesn’t explode.
Chris: Then it was Nanothermite!
Sane Person: There were no explosions.
Chris: because it was thermite!

Welcome to the funny farm. I do believe it was only a week or so ago that Chris was saying that only explosives could achieve the synchronised nature of the CD.

 

[alienentity]

Circular reasoning of Chris7.

Chris: Thermite caused WTC7 to fall down!
Sane Person: No, just fires.
Chris: But witness says explosion!
Sane Person: Thermite doesn’t explode.
Chris: Then it was Nanothermite!
Sane Person: There were no explosions.
Chris: because it was thermite!

Technically I wouldn't call that circular reasoning, I'd call it faulty reasoning, a lack of basic logic. Truthers offer multiple hypotheses, and amazingly seem to think they ALL happened, even if they are contradictory.
So if you eliminate A, they say 'aha it was B' and when you eliminate B they say 'aha it was A', since they never accept any defeat of any of their ideas, they cannot form a coherent theory.

Also what they accept as 'evidence' is highly questionable and often downright ridiculous. Yet they refuse to accept ANY level of evidence if it argues against them. This is exactly the same reasoning defect that Obama Birthers embrace - they 'believe' allegations as fact, yet refuse to accept ANY level of evidence presented in opposition.

 

[pgimeno]

Can you please post the information you are using to make the claim the buckling columns provide support/resistance to loads above?

It is axiomatic. Remember we are talking about 100 feet of FFA. All 58 exterior columns could not suddenly and simultaneously stop providing any resistance at all for 100 feet. In addition I have stated many times that the moment frames held the exterior walls together. They did not break apart. This can be seen in the computer model.

Yet you said this about the computer model:

As I have pointed out many times, the video simulation is not a proof in itself, as it doesn't reflect the collapse to enough accuracy as to show fine details like that.

Fine details?
It does not look like the videos of the actual collapse and it does not match the text. Note that there has been NO horizontal collapse.

That proves your argument above using the computer model was fallacious, therefore invalid. IOW, you have not provided an explanation on why the structure should provide resistance.

Dr. Sunder was correct when he said:
He was also correct when he said:

What are you Dr. in, Chris, as to get to decide when Dr. Sunder is right and when he is wrong?

It is necessary to turn the sound up at 0:11 in the second video as the camera and reporter were over 2,000 feet away and there were many buildings in between to dampen the sound.

But those buildings do not dampen the sound of the collapse that much. Selective dampening?

 

[Christopher7]

...and you're in denial about your lack of basic physics knowledge.

Repeating this drivel over and over and over and over again doesn't make your opinion valid. You've already been shown why your opinion and (mis)interpretation of the data is wrong dozens of times...

When you cannot dispute the message, you attack the messenger.

The drivel is yours.

 

[Christopher7]

Until you're willing to back up your nano-thermite assertion with....anything, it's completely baseless.

Hello?
Google nano-thermite paper

You're the one claiming you have proof, where is it? Where is your proof that nanothermite produces iron spheres and/or nano-thermite is the only mechanism that can produce them in bulk?

Look at the pictures I posted. Read my posts again.

This is the typical denier response when the point has been made. Ignore what was said and go on as if it were not said.

 

[Christopher7]

Lots of people heard lots of explosions.

There were no eyewitnesses reports of noises or noises on video that are consistent in timing, loudness or brisance with man-made demolition.

You have no idea what prople heard so stop making that claim.

 

[Christopher7]

I thought it was nanothermite Chris! So it it explosives or nanothermite?

It was a combination of explosives and nano-thermite. You know that but you ask this vacant question anyway.

 

[excaza]

Look at the pictures I posted. Read my posts again.

You posted a picture of metallic spheres. I'm very proud of you. Where is the proof that nanothermite was used to create the metallic spheres, and that it's the only mechanism that can do so? Such a paper shouldn't be hard to find for someone of your immense intelligence. You must have read it already in order to form the basis for your assumptions, right? You wouldn't just say these things without any proof, would you?

 

[Sabretooth]

When you cannot dispute the message, you attack the messenger.

The drivel is yours.

Um...I've made several points that completely discount what your saying using facts and evidence...just because you bury your head in the sand, it doesn't mean we can't see you...

 

[Disbelief]

It was a combination of explosives and nano-thermite. You know that but you ask this vacant question anyway.

It's not a vacant question. Why would they make it so complex? How did they use both? Why would they use both? You defeat the purpose of the thermite (no telltale detonations) by using explosives.

 

[Christopher7]

And concluded that, given the lack of water for firefighting it was sufficient to cause WTC7 to collapse in a way consistent with the eyewitness reports, evidence and the physics of fire science

If the government says so, it must be so.

Never mind the actual facts the prove the government conclusion is utterly false.

 

[excaza]

Never mind the actual facts the prove the government conclusion is utterly false.

Feel free to present those "facts" at any time.

 

[Sabretooth]

If the government says so, it must be so.

Never mind the actual facts the prove the government conclusion is utterly false.

Says the guy that believes in high-powered-super-nano-silent-lightless-thermite-explosives...

 

[uke2se]

Just to keep C7 from running in circles, he now claims it was explosives as well as nano thermite. Unless he wants to claim that nano thermite has a sound muffling effect on top of all other magic characteristics C7 ascribes to it, we can now get back to discussing the complete absence of barotrauma, flashes and sounds of demolition charges. Thermite in any of its forms is thus academic until C7 explains why none of the above are present at 9/11.

 

[carlitos]

Don't forget that you have to use explosives that "hurl the exterior beams" out of the building at a whopping "60 miles per hour." (26.8 Meters per Second)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_velocity

Typical detonation velocities in gases range from 1800 m/s to 3000 m/s. Typical velocities in solid explosives often range beyond 4000 m/s to 10300 m/s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion#Velocity

Rapidity of reaction distinguishes the explosive reaction from an ordinary combustion reaction by the great speed with which it takes place. Unless the reaction occurs rapidly, the thermally expanded gases will be dissipated in the medium, and there will be no explosion.